On Sun, 28 Jan 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > ======================================================================== > COURT GAZETTE [Arbitor's Weekly Report for 28 Jan 2018]
> 3614* Assigned to o (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00) If I am assigned to this case (unclear to me): I judge TRUE. But only in a very limited sense - for example, if two contracts perform a "handshake" that one contract authorizes starting an auction in another contract that permits such authorization. However, rules-auctions (for example) are restricted and so couldn't be so authorized without the rule defining the auction explicitly permitting it. > 3615* Assigned to o (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:51:00) If I am assigned to this case: I judge this FALSE. Zombie Auctions are the counterexample (higher power overrules this clause) and there aren't other types of auctions to consider. > 3616* Assigned to Telnaior (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:52:39) If I'm assigned to this case: I judge it IRRELEVANT. Too much work for now-gone gamestate reconstruction. > 3618* Assigned to ATMunn (due Fri, 15 Dec 2017 ~23:55:35) If I'm assigned to this case, I judge this case TRUE. R2034 is weird by ratifying information not actually contained in the document that ratifies (when adoption and taking effect are uncoupled). Causes weird effects. > 3619 Assigned to G. (due Fri, 26 Jan 2018 ~23:00:27) I judge this case FALSE based on the Caller's Perfectly- Written and Brilliant Arguments. > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-January/037707.html This case has been judged TRUE already. For future lookup purposes, I assume it's CFJ 3620.
